May 13 — Planning staff presented draft language and policy rationale for regulating bedrock removal methods after recent local projects used hydraulic chiseling instead of blasting. The city is proposing a two‑pronged approach: use the nuisance ordinance to address one‑off unpermitted loud events, and require project‑level mitigation and justification for methods used through the development‑review process.

Staff told the commission the approach responds to a specific local case where hydraulic chiseling (a noisy, excavator‑mounted chisel) was used rather than blasting regulated under Act 250. The draft asks applicants to demonstrate why a chosen method is the least‑impactful option given site conditions and to show how they will mitigate noise, vibration and other local effects. “We can’t have a one‑size‑fits‑all tool because depending on the ground conditions, depending on the scale of the project, there might be different methods,” the staff presenter said.

Commissioners urged the city to consider a broader policy that addresses major topographical change and environmental impacts beyond method selection. One commissioner cited a local project that removed a hill and cleared hundreds of trees, saying the draft does not address landscape‑scale impacts, wildlife loss or permanent topographic change. Staff agreed those are important issues but described them as a separate topic — likely addressed under other LDR provisions (for example, Article 12 environmental protections) or as a future priority for the commission to add to its work plan.

Commissioners also asked whether generator noise and other construction‑period equipment (for example temporary power units running for months) fall under the nuisance approach or should be tied into development approvals. Staff said these issues are borderline between temporary construction impacts and ongoing operations and that they will consult the city attorney and return with recommendations on whether these construction‑period noise sources should be treated through nuisance enforcement or as part of LDR conditions for development.

No ordinance change was adopted at the meeting. Staff said they will revise the bedrock‑removal draft, coordinate with the city attorney on enforcement and nuisance cross‑references, and bring a cleaned‑up proposal back to the commission for further review.